RPGs cannot have action-based movement or combat, Fallout: New Vegas is not an RPG

[Matticus]

Immersive sim was and continues to be a design philosophy.

How is "immersive-sim" less precise than "role-playing"? They are both vague descriptors that have only taken on meaning because of a need to classify a game type and capture an audience. Both could be said to be design philosophies, and at the end of the day I don't care exactly how they make an RPG an RPG as long as it embodies the feeling of choosing a disposition and set of strengths and weaknesses and then playing through a story and being allowed to make choices that best fit that character and seeing how that plays out. Whether it is first person, top-down, turn-based, action, branching dialogue, numerical stats, broad talents, procedural, is something that will evolve and change over time.

 

[Serus]

Why do we even need harsher definitions in the first place, can't we just get over the fact that RPGs covers a very broad and diverse spectrum of games?

Because if a definition (any definition) is too broad it's useless. The whole purpose of a definition is to be able to differentiate things from each other. What you get is a situation where every second game can be called "ar-pee-gee" because it has some elements loosely tied to the genre. Then when a particular one is called "rpg" tells you almost nothing about what that game is. The term becomes useless and pointless.

 

[Sigourn]

Because if a definition (any definition) is too broad it's useless. The whole purpose of a definition is to be able to differentiate things from each other. What you get is a situation where every second game can be called "ar-pee-gee" because it has some elements loosely tied to the genre. Then when a particular one is called "rpg" tells you almost nothing about what that game is. The term becomes useless and pointless.

I think the problem is people mis-using the term. For instance, some people say Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is an RPG. But it is more accurately described as an action-platformer with RPG elements, because that's in essence what the game is about. This isn't a problem with the term, this is a problem with people mis-using it, like there will always be people mis-using different terms of different genres.

In other words: the genre is just fine, but don't call a game an RPG when the game isn't trying to be one. New Vegas is an RPG, Deus Ex is an RPG, Gothic is an RPG, and Castlevania and The Legend of Zelda aren't, period.

 

[PorkBarrellGuy]

The term RPG is already useless and pointless as "role playing game" could describe nearly any form of gameplay-based entertainment, video game or otherwise. I don't care about the definition of RPG so much as I care about whether something that calls itself an RPG is engaging and entertaining.

Baseball is an RPG.

 

[Serus]

I think the problem is people mis-using the term. For instance, some people say Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is an RPG. But it is more accurately described as an action-platformer with RPG elements, because that's in essence what the game is about. This isn't a problem with the term, this is a problem with people mis-using it, like there will always be people mis-using different terms of different genres.

In other words: the genre is just fine, but don't call a game an RPG when the game isn't trying to be one. New Vegas is an RPG, Deus Ex is an RPG, Gothic is an RPG, and Castlevania and The Legend of Zelda aren't, period.

No, it's not "period". Because some people might claim, and have arguments, that including games with strong action elements is as bad as making Castlevania an RPG. That's the whole problem. There is no clear cut distinction. For example in Gothic there are people who, to my knowledge, can defeat very powerful opponent by skill alone, using their own reflexes, regardless of their char low stats. One could claim that it makes it an action game with only elements of a crpg. But even if we agree that this particular game is a crpg despite all that, it's still not clear cut at all as you claim it to be.
Different kinds of games that are often referred to as RPG:
a wizardry-like blobber,
a party based, combat focused, isometric crpg,
a fpp action/rpg hybrid,
a C&C-centered "storyfag" rpg.
Some of those often don't even feel like they belong to same genre despite having evolved from the same source. And yet you postulate that the term "crpg" should encompass all of them. From my perspective, it makes little sense.

About the reason for having a definition. Contrary to what some idiots in this thread claim having a precise enough definition is useful. That's why definition are being created in the first place. With a precise enough definition when a certain game is said to belong to genre X, we can know what game to expect in general terms. Makes it easier to buy/research games. If the definition is very broad, it's no help and can even lead to confusion. A precise enough definition also allows us to compare various games in one genre which in turn might lead to useful conclusions for the genre itself. On the other hand there is little point on comparing 2 games that only share a few elements loosely affiliated with some genre but are otherwise from different genres. The latter however happens if the definition is too broad.

Having said all that, it might be that the term "crpg" should be considered a lost cause. Perhaps it would be better to only use names for specific (sub-)genres. Not sure myself.

 

[PorkBarrellGuy]

People already think shit like Borderlands counts as an RPG for fuck's sake, the definition has been RENDERED useless for years and years by dilution of the original concept (basically a tabletop RPG converted to video game format with computer as DM). The term was already fairly unspecific by design, as tabletop RPGs run the gamut of playstyles. So I mean, come on. If you need to define your game to other people you should be fixating on the myriad of gameplay elements that compose what is loosely known as an RPG and pick and choose which ones you want and which ones you don't want to communicate as being present.

 

[Sigourn]

No, it's not "period". Because some people might claim, and have arguments, that including games with strong action elements is as bad as making Castlevania an RPG. That's the whole problem.

What are these "arguments" you mention?

There is no clear cut distinction. For example in Gothic there are people who, to my knowledge, can defeat very powerful opponent by skill alone, using their own reflexes, regardless of their char low stats. One could claim that it makes it an action game with only elements of a crpg. But even if we agree that this particular game is a crpg despite all that, it's still not clear cut at all as you claim it to be.

You said it yourself:

there are people who

"People who", not "the overwhelming majority". The overwhelming majority will find a game whose combat makes it almost impossible to beat the game without improving their character's skill and equipment. In other words, character and equipment progression in Gothic is anything but trivial.

Different kinds of games that are often referred to as RPG:
a wizardry-like blobber,
a party based, combat focused, isometric crpg,
a fpp action/rpg hybrid,
a C&C-centered "storyfag" rpg.
Some of those often don't even feel like they belong to same genre despite having evolved from the same source.

I mean, can you blame the genre? It has evolved for a long time already. Some have suggested Wizardry is not even an RPG. I personally believe it is one, but "dungeon crawler" fits it better.

And yet you postulate that the term "crpg" should encompass all of them. From my perspective, it makes little sense.

It makes perfect sense when I stop analyzing the mechanics and start analyzing the experience I get from them.

- Wizardry: I feel like I am the party, with strengths, weaknesses, and limitations.
- Baldur's Gate: likewise.
- New Vegas & Deus Ex: likewise, with the caveat you just control one character (like in Fallout).
- Planescape: Torment: likewise. Though I'm guessing you meant to say Alpha Protocol, which I haven't played.

With a precise enough definition when a certain game is said to belong to genre X, we can know what game to expect in general terms. Makes it easier to buy/research games.

The issue is that you and the elf are trying to define an RPG by its mechanics and not by the overall experience. Two games with the same mechanics may offer completely different experiences, to the point one is clearly an RPG (and one of the greatest ever made), while the other is considered a post-apocalyptic walking simulator by comparison, where all you do is shoot stuff until it dies. This is why New Vegas is an RPG, and people claim Fallout 4 is an FPS: because while the elements are there, the game simply doesn't make use of them, and prefers to play base building and Call of Duty.

New Vegas doesn't offer the experience of your typical action game. It doesn't offer the experience of your typical shooter either. In the same vein, Castlevania doesn't offer the experience of your typical RPG, but it does offer the experience of your typical action platformer "Metroidvania". And that's exactly what it is: a Metroidvania with RPG elements tacked on for novelty.

Some users say "it's an RPG if I like it!", but despite their sarcastic attitude I do believe there's some truth to it. I simply wouldn't enjoy New Vegas if it was just a Quake clone set in the Fallout universe. Why? Because it would lose everything that makes it an RPG and not just a bad shooter (bad gunplay and very few enemies to kill + uninteresting scenarios to kill them in).

 

[Maggot]

It doesn't matter what you fail at, progressing in the game and getting new items is hardly a specific thing to RPGs. 0 to 100 in Guns only increases damage by 100%, if you can't make a dent with 0 skill without running out of ammo, you won't make a dent with 100 either. The important bit is later, though, that we can't point to any other game that is considered an RPG and say it's like New Vegas, but we can point to all the shooters, which is what is ultimately important in defining a genre.

actually it affects accuracy and weapon sway

 

[Sigourn]

Yet, it's not like any other RPG you can point to, but you can point to shooters and stealth games and say Deus Ex is similar. That's the problem.

You can also point to strategy or "tactical" games and say they have similar combat to RPGs...

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

A lot of verbiage that just shows you simply don't understand how genres as categories are defined and reached. The most telling thing in the entire thread that shows this is simply bias and wishful thinking is how nobody is defending Alpha Protocol and why people are saying Bethesda's Fallouts aren't RPGs, but F:NV is. Alpha Protocol is basically the same thing as F:NV - character development, stats, branching narrative, quests, etc. The same things people are saying makes F:NV an RPG. When called out they say "but Alpha Protocol doesn't have enough character development and F:NV is better than Bethesda, so it's an RPG!", if that isn't arbitrary I don't know what is. The "if F:NV is an RPG, then Fallout 1 can't be one" is exactly the most damning thing of all, because they aren't the same thing.

Dude, this is the textbook definition of a tautology. You’re saying Fallout and New Vegas are not the same thing [both RPGs] because... they’re not the same thing.

You see why that’s hard to take seriously?

Aside from combat and the camera angle/exploration, Fallout and New Vegas have a great deal in common. Certainly, New Vegas has a hell of a lot more in common with Fallout than any pure dungeon crawl does. Can Fallout and Wizardry be part of the same genre? They clearly are not the same thing, either. They may both have turn based combat and character progression (and traps!), but everything else is different. You can beat Fallout by investing in the requisite skills and picking the right dialogue options with the master; does it really belong in the same genre with a game that doesn’t even have any NPCs, let alone any dialogue? Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, games can have a fair amount of differences and still be part of the same overall genre?

You say that some of us are basically pleading to make an exception for F:NV because we like it. But I can tell you exactly why New Vegas and Alpha Protocol and Gothic and Bloodlines are RPGs while Fallout 4 and Borderlands are not. It’s just part one of your definition: an RPG requires character building and your build needs to have a real impact on how your character interacts with the world (combat is only one possible part of that). IIRC Borderlands has no stats, just unlockable special abilities, so no checks, and Fallout 4 has like 3 stat checks, all of which are in the same place. Your build in F4 has no impact on how you interact with the game world aside from a few near mandatory perks that unlock crafting or minigames. Your stats do not limit your gameplay options, which, to me, is the essential ingredient in an RPG. To the extent the SPECIAL system exists in F4, it is totally vestigial. If the game plays the same regardless of your build, it’s clearly not an RPG.

Incidentally, if you wanted to make a truly parsimonious definition it would be something like: an RPG is a game where you build a character or characters (at the beginning and through leveling), and your build decisions determine the way that character interacts with the world, including in combat.

That way you’re including things like skill checks and reactivity, and you don’t need to start making the UI the decisive feature. In New Vegas, Alpha Protocol, Gothic, and Bloodlines your build decisions do determine how your character interacts with the world (and vice versa) except in combat where they only partially determine what your character can do. But they do still have an impact: try aiming your gun in Alpha Protocol without investing in Pistols.

So they’re action RPGs: your build controls interaction outside of combat and it influences combat along with the player’s twitch skill. A shooter with lots of talking and gear and character progression but where your character’s skills don’t have a fundamental impact on gameplay is merely a shooter with RPG elements, not an action RPG. That’s where you draw the line; I can’t understand why you find this so baffling.

 

[Roguey]

What's wild and confusing is how back in the day, some people's definition of action RPG was "RPG that focuses on the action, that is, combat." Jagged Alliance the action RPG.

 

[Jezal_k23]

Must we suffer?

 

[Swampy_Merkin]

I didn't bother to read this entire thread, but I did read some of the early posts. For what it's worth:

I played FO3 and NV entirely with the V.A.T.S system. OK, maybe on some sniper-y shots that happened to present themselves I took advantage, but that was rare.

If you take that approach to those games, then they absolutely do not fall under the heading of "shooter." There is practically no FPS skill involved. It becomes entirely based on your character's shooting stats and entirely abstracted from real-time action.

At most, FO:3 and NV are hybrid shooter/rpgs along the lines of Deus EX. But only if you insist on playing the shooter battles in real-time.

I chose V.A.T.S because that was the RP way to do it.

I don't see why you don't see this, OP. The level of RPG abstraction is entirely there, if you want it.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

A lot of verbiage that just shows you simply don't understand how genres as categories are defined and reached. The most telling thing in the entire thread that shows this is simply bias and wishful thinking is how nobody is defending Alpha Protocol and why people are saying Bethesda's Fallouts aren't RPGs, but F:NV is. Alpha Protocol is basically the same thing as F:NV - character development, stats, branching narrative, quests, etc. The same things people are saying makes F:NV an RPG. When called out they say "but Alpha Protocol doesn't have enough character development and F:NV is better than Bethesda, so it's an RPG!", if that isn't arbitrary I don't know what is. The "if F:NV is an RPG, then Fallout 1 can't be one" is exactly the most damning thing of all, because they aren't the same thing.

Alpha Protocol is a cover-based shooter with linear levels (that are mostly horrifically designed and provide almost no exploration, albeit with a non-linear overall structure to the game), limited character options, semi-interactive cutscenes, and story-based C&C. Fallout: New Vegas is an open world first-person shooter with various dungeons that has some considerable amount of exploration, a VATS mode to make combat more dependent on character skill rather than player skill, and far more developed character options (especially regarding equipment and inventory), plus some semi-interactive dialogue and story-based C&C. You might argue for a strict enough definition of RPG to exclude Fallout: New Vegas, but you should at least acknowledge that Alpha Protocol is much further from being an RPG.

And I quickly conceded that, sure, we can call them RPGs so long as we come up with some kind of distinction for later RPGs that do have lots of reactivity, dialogue trees, quests with multiple solutions, and C&C. If that’s NOT part of what makes Fallout or Arcanum an RPG, then I’d really like another term for it so that I can concisely apply it to other games.

CYOARPGs.

 

[Lacrymas]

That way you’re including things like skill checks and reactivity, and you don’t need to start making the UI the decisive feature. In New Vegas, Alpha Protocol, Gothic, and Bloodlines your build decisions do determine how your character interacts with the world (and vice versa) except in combat where they only partially determine what your character can do. But they do still have an impact: try aiming your gun in Alpha Protocol without investing in Pistols.

You are saying "you don't need to start making the UI a decisive feature" only because it will include the things you are saying are RPGs when they are not and that continues the same problem of trying to make an exception for F:NV. Also, nothing I have said is a tautology, my argument is not "they are not the same because they are not the same", nobody can say that F:NV and Fallout 1 play the same or are the same type of game, if it was I'd have managed to get more into F:NV than I did. And before anyone says anything, no, I'm not excluding F:NV because I can't force myself to play through it, I love VtMB, Deus Ex and System Shock 2, but don't call them RPGs either. Apart from camera and controls, the most significant difference is indeed how the combat operates and that is enough in this case. Popamolists who can play F:NV won't be able to play Fallout 1 because they are so significantly different even in that way, so that is also one fairly strong argument for why the thought of saying they are the same type of game is absolutely bonkers to anyone who isn't biased. It's much more truthful to say that character development can be transplanted (a bit haphazardly) onto an FPS, rather than anything with character development being an RPG. Which, again, broadens the word to meaninglessness.

Let's take another example - Gothic and F:NV, Gothic doesn't have an "extensive enough" character system or skill checks of any kind, so why are you considering Gothic as an RPG when F:NV is also one because of its character development and skill checks? Seems arbitrary, like everything else in their defense.

Alpha Protocol is a cover-based shooter with linear levels (that are mostly horrifically designed and provide almost no exploration, albeit with a non-linear overall structure to the game), limited character options

Again, how do you know when the character options are "enough" for it to be an RPG?

 

[HeatEXTEND]

snip

So let's get this straight, you are arguing that Deus Ex, VTMB, NV and SS2 are closer to Doom than they are to [insert Lacrymas approved RPG here]?

 

[HeatEXTEND]

relax, was directed towards OP

 

[Lacrymas]

So let's get this straight, you are arguing that Deus Ex, VTMB, NV and SS2 are closer to Doom than they are to [insert Lacrymas approved RPG here]?

At this particular time, I don't really care to what other thing they are similar. They are similar to each other, but not to Doom or ToEE for example. Although, gameplay-wise in terms of shooting (and don't kid yourself, that is what you overwhelmingly do in F:NV), yeah, closer to Doom. That doesn't mean they are "action-RPGs" or, God-forbid, RPGs.

 

[Jason Liang]

Some games are hybrids.

New Vegas is an RPG/ shooter hybrid. It has significant gameplay elements from both genres.

Other examples include Dungeons & Dragons: Shadows of Mystara, which ia an RPG/ arcade brawler hybrid, and Rance VI which is a blobber/ eroge hybrid.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

The term RPG has a lot of classes(hue), right?

jRPG - No character creation, static (front-row back-row) stat-based TB combat, no c&c etc.
aRPG - realtime click-to-kill, loot mania, no c&c etc.
cRPG - top-down, character creation, stat based c&c etc.
blobber - 1st person move-as-one, puzzles, tiles etc.

why not add fRPG - 1st person, stat based gameplay, integrated words (tied into gameplay, not just exposition)?

Spoiler

DISCLAIMER: yup, these are all very broad strokes, call the cops I don't give a fug

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

It seems to me that Lacrymas treats genres as Platonic forms. Eternal, unchanging, very rigid.

I think it is more productive to talk about genres in terms of family resemblance.

So, HeatEXTEND asked a good and relevant question.

So let's get this straight, you are arguing that Deus Ex, VTMB, NV and SS2 are closer to Doom than they are to [insert Lacrymas approved RPG here]?

 

[HeatEXTEND]

gameplay-wise in terms of shooting (and don't kid yourself, that is what you overwhelmingly do in F:NV), yeah, closer to Doom.

How about Pathologic ?(yeah yeah it doesn't have RPG stats but just for the sake of argument)

 

[Lacrymas]

How about Pathologic ?(yeah yeah it doesn't have RPG stats but just for the sake of argument)

Pathologic is pretty unique, I'd say. I wouldn't know how to classify it and that's ok.

It seems to me that Lacrymas treats genres as Platonic forms. Eternal, unchanging, very rigid.

No, I don't. I specifically said that genre instability is a thing in 20th century art and beyond.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

Pathologic is pretty unique, I'd say. I wouldn't know how to classify it and that's ok.

Sure enough, but is it closer to Doom or [insert approved RPG here]?

 

[Lacrymas]

It isn't closer to any of those. That's a pretty weird question.